Ok, I only got through about half the article before my eyes glazed over but let me put this out there. 1) they've just recently started using this new and improved way to measure the gravity fields. 2) their old data it based on measurements from a courser way to measure it.
Wouldn't we expect a difference from then to now? Wouldn't that be like expecting a line measured with a Gunter's chain to measure excatly the same when using an EDM? Damn, I'm getting a grant to study the affects of global warming/climate change on measurements on the face of the earth from the 1800s to 2014. Bet I know what I'll find.
> Ok, I only got through about half the article before my eyes glazed over but let me put this out there. 1) they've just recently started using this new and improved way to measure the gravity fields. 2) their old data it based on measurements from a courser way to measure it.
>
>
> Wouldn't we expect a difference from then to now? Wouldn't that be like expecting a line measured with a Gunter's chain to measure excatly the same when using an EDM? Damn, I'm getting a grant to study the affects of global warming/climate change on measurements on the face of the earth from the 1800s to 2014. Bet I know what I'll find.
That is a pretty weak subterfuge, but I won't entertain a response since it will spiral into a political argument.
After reading the whole article, I'd misunderstood the point of new equipment and old equipment. They are using the new to supplement the old, not comparing. Doesn't matter, they ran their data for 3 years. 3 years versus the age of the earth is a pretty small sample size. If the magnetic field grew in the next three years or the ice cap increased would you say one had anything to due with the other? No, too small of sample. It always amazes me that anyone can say "this is the worst drought in history" with a straight face. They are only comparing 200 years of data. The west is going through a major drought right now but if you compare the archilogical data to whats happening now, it's about normal. Califonia is coming out of one of the wettest 300 years they can gauge. The Sahara used to be a very wet place until 10,000 ago (I believe, it's been awhile since I read the book) but in less than 3 generations it became one of the driest. They suspect the whobble in the eath orbit has a lot to do with it and believe rain will return someday. 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years of data, thats what they should be comparing to not 3 years.
I do believe the climate is changing. And it may change sooner than most believe so I would have our scientist working on ways to deal with it. Crops that need less warmth, animals that can graze on less grass, etc... I do not believe the whole thing is man made and I don't believe we'll stop it. Did those poor slobs in the Sahara 10,000 years ago do something to cause the rains to quit? Most of the money is going to research to study the effects of climate change on one thing or the other, not how to deal with it.
A retired Ohio State professor was telling a story on the radio of how he was trying to get funding to study some kind of corn pest. He wanted to figure out the best way to deal with it. He kept getting turned down. Year after year he was turned down until he changed a few words on his request and turned his study into how climate change was affecting this pest. He got the money, did the research he wanted, told them what they wanted to hear about how it was being affected negativly and every one was happy. Follow the money.
Reminds me of one of my favorite George Carlin monologues.
> Reminds me of one of my favorite George Carlin monologues.
>
> We are so self important
:good:
Perhaps gravity is affecting climate chang?.
Where do I get my grant money for the study?
